The report participants have loaded all sorts of beliefs into this report which are not substantiated by the excavation itself. If that is not fraud, then what is?
This is quite commonplace. They are not writing the report to refute revisionism. They are writing the report within a paradigm in which the extermination of the Jews is assumed.
The report is not suited for a refutation of revisionism, but then neither is is most work within any paradigm. The division between work within a paradigm (which does not purport to prove the paradigmatic assumptions) and work outside of it (where those assumptions themselves are directly challenged) is not absolute, but it does help illustrate the issue.
I agree that Herr Muehlenkamp misrepresents the material.
I am merely challenging his overly complicated approach to a very simple issue.
I think Rankwell drastically overestimates the value of this report to anti-revisionist argument, and have made a few observations to that effect on the relevant thread. That said, he should be commended, not blamed, for bringing up the issue. Revisionism is improved by dealing with people who will play devil's advocate.
The situation reminds me of the disagreement between Mattogno and Faurisson - the latter being in favor of aggressive public argument, the former of a more careful and self-critical approach. Both methods have their proper place, but in a forum where revisionists talk to each other, we should always be at our most self-critical. For a case study of the effects of not allowing criticism, look at the imbecility of the holocaust orthodoxy.